Shri Yogeshwar Kisanrao Udakhe vs State Information Commissioner & Ors.

Heard.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels for the parties.

By the present petitions, both the petitioners challenge the order dated 24.03.2021 passed in Second Appeal No. 39/2017 by respondent no.1- State Information Commissioner, Bench at Amravati.

Since, an identical issue is involved in both the petitions; rather, both the petitions are against a common impugned order therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

The petitioners in both the petitions were working with respondent no. 3- Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal as Extension Officers. Respondent no. 4- Mohan Babarao Rathod sought some information from the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Yavatmal. Since, the said information was not supplied, he filed a First Appeal before respondent no. 2- First Appellate Authority, Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Yavatmal. Since, respondent no. 2 did not decide the First Appeal within the stipulated time, respondent no. 4 filed a Second Appeal before respondent no. 1- State Information Commissioner, Amravati. Pending the appeal, the information was supplied to respondent no. 4 by the Panchayat Samiti, Yavatmal. However, by order dated 27.08.2020 passed in Appeal No. 39/2017, respondent no. 1 imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the Public Information Officer- Shri Sandip Kelatkar. However, again respondent no. 1, by a corrigendum dated 24.03.2021, while correcting the order dated 27.08.2020, imposed a penalty on the petitioners in both the petitions for the reason that they were the Public Information Officers at the relevant time. The contention is that, no notice was issued to the petitioners before imposing the said penalty.

Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and having gone through the record, it appears that the petitioners were not even a party to the Appeal before the First Appellate Authority or before the State Information Commissioner. That apart, though Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, “the Act of 2005”) empowers the State Information Commission to impose a penalty not exceeding Rs.25,000/- but the proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act of 2005 contemplates that before imposing any penalty on the Public Information Officer, he/she shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

In the present case, neither the petitioners were parties to the First Appeal filed before the First Appellate Authority nor in the Second Appeal filed before the State Information Commissioner. Rather, initially the penalty was imposed on one Shri Sandip Kelatkar; however, by a corrigendum dated 24.03.2021, without giving a notice to the petitioners, the penalty of Rs.25,000/- each was imposed on them instead of imposing it on Shri Sandip Kelatkar. In these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, an opportunity of hearing has to be given to the petitioners before imposing the penalty. Therefore, the impugned order passed by respondent no. 1 does not stand to the reason and is required to be set aside. Hence, the following order:-